Risk analysis in long term audit planning and audit preparation – part II

Phase 2 – Analysis at the level of the area of responsibility (auditable area)

Internal audit’s responsibility for the proper application of risk based analysis in the preparation of its audit activities does not end with the multi-year audit planning or its actualisation. Each area of responsibility which has been selected for audit needs to go through a risk based analysis at the operational level as part of the specific audit planning phase.
This second phase assumes there is no structural risk management application present which outputs could be used as input for audit preparation purposes.

Executing the operational risk analysis

We survey all collaborators (“responsibles, accountable and consulted” in the context of the RACI matrix) within the selected auditable area. We use the 80 statements developed in the Risk Identification Model. Note this is not simply executing the initial entity wide risk analysis again. The scope of the assessment is both more narrow and deeper, as it only covers the auditable area but covers it in-depth. In addition, not all collaborators were (necessarily) involved in the execution of the entity wide risk analysis which was used for purposes of multi-year internal audit planning. Remember, the decision to involve them was at the discretion of the person accountable for the auditable area.

These collaborators are asked to judge each of the statements as to relevance and current risk exposure. Remember that risk exposure is a function of their assessment of impact, likelihood of occurrence and current level of risk management and leads to the development of a risk control matrix.

Risk analysis results

The risk analysis results, correctly represented in a risk control matrix, are but one input in the preparation of the audit approach. Of course internal audit remains independent in its assessment and can call on other information to complement the risk analysis. However, note that this, both from the point of view of the IIA’s standards and the effort of the organisation should be considered as a major specific audit planning input. What’s also interesting is that these results allow internal audit to make a comparison with the initial assessment of middle management.

The results also provide us with more information as to which aspects of the auditable area are considered to be important by the collaborators intimately involved with the process. In essence, it’s an appreciation of sorts of their understanding and knowledge of the problems they can be confronted with.

Perhaps counterintuitively, our priority audit areas are not those areas of high risk and low control. We want to ensure that these are subject to a risk mitigation or monitoring plan which is in the process of being implemented. These risks are actually the responsibility of the risk management function, if it exists. When auditee and auditor agree on the existence of a problem and the auditor has gathered enough audit evidence to confirm the existence and the scope of the problem, his audit activities need to end. He can then write this up in his audit report.

Internal audit’s responsibility is to provide assurance. Hence, we look at those areas which are considered to be high risk but under control. We assure the board, the audit committee and management that, based on our assessment, these risks are in effect under control.

Building the audit workprogram

Those areas which are considered to be those high risk high control areas constitute, together with the appreciation of the auditor based on prior experience, the basis for the development of the core of the audit workprogram. Note that the build of the audit workprogram consists of a significant change in the approach from risk to process.

During the risk analysis the auditor focuses on risks. Risks and their appreciation by collaborators in the process are central to the approach. However, once the auditor starts the development of the audit workprogram, all risks with an influence in an auditable area are gathered and covered in the audit workprogram. The process becomes the central aspect and the entire audit workprogram is structured according to the processes covered in the auditable area.

This has a very logical but sometimes difficult to accept consequence for auditors. If a certain process within an auditable area is not linked to one or more risks, if no indication other than the analysis exists that there are risks related to that process, it should no longer necessarily be covered by an audit activity.

Executing the audit

After the audit workprogram has been developed and validated by the CAE, the actual audit can start. The auditors execute all activities planned and described in the audit workprogram. Note that multiple risks can be evaluated at the same time, depending on the results from the audit activities which are executed. In case for example accuracy and completeness of a transaction are to be evaluated, running a test-batch of information through the process can be a test functional for both objectives.

Results

In addition to the standard audit dispositions which need to be reached at the end of an audit activity in the audit workprogram this approach allows us to assess the understanding of risks and relevance of the current risk management measures. Especially those situations where there is a significant discrepancy between the assessment of the accountable people and the assessment of the responsible people. This may be an indication of deeper underlying issues.

Related

Published by Ben Broeckx

Professor and academic director internal audit at Antwerp Management School - Writing about leadership, management and governance - Interested in any system that can be explored, analyzed and deconstructed. By day also Director Public Benefits & Public Affairs at Sodexo Benefits & Rewards Services Belgium.
View all posts by Ben Broeckx